tea party a Messenger of Hate

It was just a matter of time before the following happened and now the cat is out of the bag. The tea party is showing their true colors and they are filled with hate. You read some of the posts and some of the replies and its evident these are some very unhappy people. Unhappy with their lives and of their surroundings.

Here's a prime example shown below. The psychology behind the post is the same as used by most cults, y mixing in lies, hate and truth. I'm sure in the following paragraph, there will be some points everyone will agree with. Hopefully these types of people are a dying breed.

Majorities of Americans (or in some polls, clear pluralities) call themselves "pro-life." Every state that has held a referendum on recognizing homosexual relationships as "marriages" has voted not to do so (or, more precisely, has voted to define marriage as being only between a man and woman). Wholesome movies regularly do better at the box office than sleazy ones do. Americans prefer being "tough on crime" to being lenient. Americans tend to like local control of schools, parental involvement and choice in education, and traditional curricula. Far more Americans feel strongly in favor of gun rights than in favor of gun control. Americans treasure families and neighborhoods, and oppose governmental intrusions into them. We don't like governmental racial preferences. We are deeply patriotic. We far prefer conservative judges to liberal ones. And we still are a faithful people, with churches and belief in God a very important part of most of our lives.

TOKYO Japanese researchers have invented a speech-jamming gadget that painlessly forces people into silence.

Kazutaka Kurihara of the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, and Koji Tsukada of Ochanomizu University, developed a portable "SpeechJammer" gun that can silence people more than 30 meters away.

The device works by recording its target's speech then firing their words back at them with a 0.2-second delay, which affects the brain's cognitive processes and causes speakers to stutter before silencing them completely.

Describing the device in a research paper published Feb. 28 at arXiv.org, Kurihara and Tsukada wrote, "In general, human speech is jammed by giving back to the speakers their own utterances at a delay of a few hundred milliseconds. This effect can disturb people without any physical discomfort, and disappears immediately by stopping speaking."

They found that the device works better on people who were reading aloud than engaged in "spontaneous speech" and it cannot stop people making meaningless sounds, such as "ahhh," that are uttered over a long time period.

Kurihara and Tsukada suggested the speech-jamming gun could be used to hush noisy speakers in public libraries or to silence people in group discussions who interrupt other people's speeches.

"There are still many cases in which the negative aspects of speech become a barrier to the peaceful resolution of conflicts," the authors said.

Link Has Rush Limbaugh finally gone too far?Has Rush Limbaugh finally gone too far? Has he said something so outrageous that it is actually damaging the conservative principles he espouses?Those are relevant questions in the wake of the radio host/gadfly/provocateur’s labeling Georgetown University law school student Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute,” while urging her to make public video tapes of her intimate acts. Mr. Limbaugh made the comments after Ms. Fluke testified in support of mandatory employer health coverage of contraception in front of a nonofficial congressional committee.

“If we are going to have to pay for this then we want something in return, Ms. Fluke,” Limbaugh said on his radio show earlier this week. “And that would be the videos of all this sex posted online so we can see what we’re getting for our money.”

Link EXCLUSIVE: In '02 Romney Touted D.C. Connections, Federal Funds.In a long-forgotten tape from the 2002 Massachusetts governor's race obtained by ABC News, Mitt Romney is seen touting his Washington connections and his ability to get millions of taxpayer dollars from the federal government.

Rush Limbaugh has truly done it. Proved that his 'Brain' is swinging between his legs, and that his 'Mouth' is just a few inches to the rear of his 'Brain'!

What is it with these Republican MEN who Can't begin to grasp the idea that 'The Pill' is used for Much More than Birth Control.Is Sex truly the Only thing on their mind?With Rush's wish for 'Videos', apparently so...

(The Wall Street Journal) - Touting his American-made automobiles at a speech for the Detroit Economic Club Friday, Mitt Romney said, "Ann drives a couple of Cadillacs, actually."...(The campaign clarified Romney owns two Cadillac SRXs, one in California and one in Massachusetts.)! ! !

Santorum clearly mischaracterized Obama’s comments on college, which actually mirror Santorum’s own views. Obama did not say he wanted “everybody in America to go to college.”

Santorum also completely misstated the results of research on the impact of college attendance on religious behavior. The relevant studies suggest that going to college actually increases religious attendance (albeit with perhaps a bit more skeptical mind).

Another attempt to show that the majority are against this, but the polls show otherwise.

Every state that has held a referendum on recognizing homosexual relationships as "marriages" has voted not to do so (or, more precisely, has voted to define marriage as being only between a man and woman).

Here’s our guide to gay marriage polls. We always incorpate the latest poll into our results. Right now, the most recent gay marriage poll comes from CBS News in July 2011. It showed that most people support gay marriage rights. According to the poll, 53% say the government should legally recognize same-sex marriages.

The CBS News gay marriage poll also said that most older people are against gay marriage, while most under 60 are for it.

An ABC News poll conducted in July 2011 showed similar results. According to that poll, ■51% support gay marriage ■45% are against it. ■4% are unsure.

Changes Over Time

Public perception of gay marriage rights has changed rapidly in just a few years. Look at the results from just 5 years ago, in 2006, also from ABC News. ■36% supported gay marriage ■58% were against it. ■5% were unsure.

So in 5 years we’ve seen a 15% point jump in public support, a dramatic change for public perception on a social issue.

Support is Political

While most people in America now support gay marriage, the support is based on whether the person is republican, democrat, or an independent. ﻿﻿﻿﻿A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll in April 2011 determined the following levels of support based on political parties:

For Democrats, ■64% support it. ■35% are against it. ■1% are unsure.

But for Republicans, ■27% support it. ■71 are against it. ■2% are unsure.

And for independents, ■55% support it. ■43% are against it. ■2% are unsure.

Nevertheless, according to these gay marriage polls, the trend is that public support for gay marriage is increasing, and quickly too.

Let's look at this first sentence. It's true as written, but it's implying that we as Americans want laws that are pro-life, which is a bald faced lie. I myself am pro-life, however like most people I do not feel that my personal beliefs must be shared by everyone. That's never the case with the far right. Amusingly stated, they are deeply entrenched with that Southern Baptist doctrine, "If you're not a Baptist you are going to hell, so whatever I do to make you a Baptist is acceptable.

As you may know, President Obama recently announced an adjustment to the administration's health care rule regarding religiously-affiliated employers providing birth control coverage to female employees. Women will still be guaranteed coverage for birth control without any out-of-pocket cost, but will have to seek the coverage directly from their insurance companies if their employers object to birth control on religious grounds. Do you approve or disapprove of President Obama's decision?"

Approve 54% Disapprove 38% Unsure 7% Note, 75% of Democrats were for this alonmg with 56% of Independents. Only 32 percent of Republicans were. Who wants to bet these were Progressive Republicans, the group that we can only hope will take control of the Republican Party

"The new Obama health care law requires that employer health plans provide birth control coverage as part of preventive services for women. Catholic and other religious-affiliated hospitals and universities typically have not provided any birth control coverage for their employees, and oppose the new requirement because it violates their religious rights. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of requiring employer health plans to cover birth control for women?"

Approve 61%Disapprove 34%Unsure 5%

So in conclusion, it's obvious that the far right is not in the majority. In fact they are not even close.

Appearing on ABC's This Week, Rick Santorum elaborated on his statement that watching John F. Kennedy's 1960 speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association made him want to "throw up." Especially purgative, apparently, is the idea that a president should openly declare his reluctance to take advice from members of the clergy. Candidate Santorum favors a more fluid relationship between church and state, a sentiment he supports with reference to the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

As is so often the case with GOP rhetoric, Santorum's statements amount to clamorous half-knowing. (He said in the same interview that all university professors are liberals, which is also half-true; some of us are social democrats.) He is right to question the extent to which religion and politics are distinct realms in the American tradition. Many secularists will instinctively point to the establishment clause of the First Amendment as imposing a separation of church and state. But that view is not quite right. In its 1791 context the establishment clause did not impose an absolute barrier between religious institutions and government: several states in the union had official religions, so the amendment's guarantee that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" assures the states that the new federal government would not impose its will upon them in this regard. It is only much later -- often said to be the Supreme Court's decision in Everson v. Board of Education (1947), though arguably not until Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) -- that something resembling a full separation of church and state can be said to have taken place.

Santorum is also right that an institutional separation of church and state, even if absolute, does not legitimize the removal of belief statements from the "public square." The First Amendment's free exercise clause does indeed recognize that Congress should not abridge an individual's expressions of conscience. The view that non-belief is a more legitimate form of public discourse than belief is a twentieth-century creature, finding its peak in the judicial assault on religious schooling. Secularists who applaud that assault might pause to wonder if inner-city education has thrived after the de-funding of Catholic schools. And we must wonder more generally if the liberal justification for a secular public sphere holds up to scrutiny: by its logic we must demand that believers leave their beliefs at home and make public statements in the language of reason. It is a logic ironically marginalizing individuals in the name of equality.

But free exercise also has elements flatly contradicting Santorum's position. The clause distills the liberty of conscience tradition, with its emphasis on an individual's right to follow divine will without the interference of worldly authority. It is a tradition deeply hostile to Roman Catholicism. From the Protestant idea of the priesthood of the believer arises antipathy toward the Catholic Church's claim infallibly to embody God's will and to be through its hierarchy the gatekeeper of the Kingdom of Heaven. In Protestant thought such claims are viewed as an arrogation of divine authority and come to be associated with the wiles of Satan -- it was simply taken for granted by early Protestants that the pope was Antichrist's chief agent on Earth. Under this view, liberty of conscience is threatened not only by the over-reaching magistrate, but also by the over-reaching priest. In the speech that Santorum finds so nauseating, Kennedy recognizes that churches can threaten free exercise by using state power to advance their interests: "I am wholly opposed to the state being used to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion."

Santorum may thus be surprised to learn that the ideas underpinning the free exercise clause seek to limit the church's power, and that they are particularly opposed to the church of which he is a member. He is correct in saying that the free exercise clause protects the right of individuals to express religious views in the public square, but he is wrong to say that this amounts to a porous relationship between church and state.

The First Amendment is complex; Rick Santorum is less so. We know this already. Much more alarming is the Supreme Court getting the principles of establishment and free exercise wrong in its recent 9-0 decision in Hosanna-Tabor. But that requires a separate post.